It can also be noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject [evolution] in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don’t they give us answers to our many questions?

-Where did all the 90-plus elements (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc.) come from? How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?

-How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

-Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from? ... They could not have developed from the elements, because elements rarely react with each other. For example, did all the salt in the ocean form by sodium reacting with chlorine (a gas)? Therefore almost all compounds had to have been created as compounds. When did all the compounds we find in the world develop—before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang? When evolutionists use the term “matter,” which of the thousands of compounds is included? When evolutionists use the term “primordial soup,” which of the elements and compounds is included?

Probably because the answers to your questions (those that aren't just stupid) are easily available of you'd only choose to look, and therefore the merely rhetorical nature of your enquiries is recognised.

-If evolution is true then where did the 90 plus elements come from?
-If it's raining today why did the allies win the second world war?
-If the sea is wet then why was I late for work this morning?
-If god created the world then why are you an idiot?

See! I can ask questions that don't make any sense as well! And people probably won't answer my questions either!

Yet your side has "goddidit" or "read Genesis". Neither which have any substantiation, through science, history or common sense.

Look, the side of natural evolution is not only one of evidence, it's one of massive evidence. It has made more predictions in the past that have been proven then any religion and the science has directly led to medicine that works.

Continually asking science to explain things down to the smallest detail is pointless to the laymans understanding. And in the end if it's provided to you (which it is via your internet hookup) you just ignore it, say it's not enough or decide your goalpost isn't just on Pluto now but it's also invisible or sciences vast data base is too damn big and complex to fit through the posts anyway.

"How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?" It wasn't "determined". That implies God. There is a complex answer to this, but you wouldn't understand it. Let's just say, the result of the singularity was the formation of different elements.

"How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?" Using loaded words like "precision" and "design" again implies God. More and more complex elements formed through the forces in stars.

"Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from? ... They could not have developed from the elements, because elements rarely react with each other." I beg your pardon?

"For example, did all the salt in the ocean form by sodium reacting with chlorine (a gas)?" Yes.

"When evolutionists use the term “matter,” which of the thousands of compounds is included?" All of them, you total lunatic.

"When evolutionists use the term “primordial soup,” which of the elements and compounds is included?" The ones in amino acids.

Also, evolution is not the same as the Big Bang or abiogenesis. But you Sir, are the same as a moron.

Wow! So much ignorance in such a short article. This is not "questioning evolution", it is lying to the 10th power. These people will not allow comment on their site to even reply. What happened to equal time for all theories? Does this only work to their advantage and then censor anyone who gives them the correct science? "View point discrimination" at its best.
I despair for the education system in the USA when this pile of bullshit is allowed unchallenged.
Sorry for the rant.

"It can also be noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject [evolution] in the broadest terms".

Actually, biologists deal with evolution in pretty specific terms. Namely, biological evolution. Physics, cosmology, chemistry - those things are not what biologists do. Ask a physicist about the origin of elements. Ask a chemist about how wrong you are about elements not reacting much. And as an extra point, all the salt in the ocean is not sodium chloride. There's an awful lot of knowledge out there that you deliberately mislead children about. You're a liar and fraud Bob. Jesus would not be happy with you.

Evolutionary biologists don't answer the questions you brought up here because their major was in evolutionary biology and the questions you're asking relate to particle physics. That said, I'm pretty sure you can talk to a particle physicist and he would give you very accurate answers to your questions which you would dismiss out of hand anyway.

"It can also be noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject [evolution] in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don’t they give us answers to our many questions?"

Because the questions you ask are irrelevant, inane, simplistic, strawmen, or otherwise not worth answering as the answers can be found in dumbed down popular science books on the topic.

"Where did all the 90-plus elements (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc.) come from? How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?"

This is a perfect example of an irrelevant question. It shows you don't even know what evolution is to begin with.

By the way, the elements come from stars, which is a topic for physics and not biology.

"How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?"

Physics again.

"Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from?"

This is chemistry. At least you're in the right ballpark this time. You're still playing the wrong game though. Not to mention that your chemistry knowledge seems to be on par with your knowledge of evolution.

"When evolutionists use the term 'matter,' which of the thousands of compounds is included?"

I don't believe I've ever heard an "evolutionist" use the term the way you're implying.

"When evolutionists use the term 'primordial soup,' which of the elements and compounds is included?"

Look up the rather famous experiment that recreated it. There's only a handful of ingredients.

Hydrogen and Helium primarily formed as the universe cooled shortly after the Big Bang. The rest of elements 1-26 were products of nuclear fusion in stars. Elements 27+ were formed by stellar nucleosenthesis during supernovae.

"How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?"

Chemistry, i.e., how many valence electrons does the atom have, and which shell are they in.

"-How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?"

The number of electrons increases because the number of PROTONS increases. The number of protons DEFINES what chemical element it is, so there have to be more electrons as the atomic number goes up.

"-Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from?"

Two+ atoms of the appropriate element came into contact and, voila! Sometimes a catalyst is required, but sometimes the reaction is so fast it's explosive.

"... They could not have developed from the elements, because elements rarely react with each other."

The hell you say?

"For example, did all the salt in the ocean form by sodium reacting with chlorine (a gas)?"

Yes, I invite you to try that experiment. First, fill a room with chlorine gas. (You shouldn't need a respirator or a chemical suit at all because it's just an element, and elements don't react naturally, right?) Carry a bottle of sodium metal in the room and open it. I'll be looking for the reports about the "massive chemical explosion" on CNN to see if you performed the experiment or not.

"Therefore almost all compounds had to have been created as compounds. When did all the compounds we find in the world develop—before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang?"

No, just no. In fact, cosmologists will tell you EXPLICITLY that there were no compounds at the moment after the big bang. There weren't even protons and neutrons at that point because the universe was too hot for them to exist.

"When evolutionists use the term “matter,” which of the thousands of compounds is included?"

"Matter" = particles. Therefore, all of them.

"When evolutionists use the term “primordial soup,” which of the elements and compounds is included?"

The fact that Robert Congelliere is looking for physics answers in a biology theory clearly demonstrates the fact that he's too damn stupid to understand the answers even if he ever did look in the right place to find them.

The fact that he posted these questions on a creationist website clearly demonstrates that he doesn't care what the answers really are and is only interested in reinforcing his own ignorance.

The answers to all of these questions are readily available. For example, "Where did all the 90-plus elements ... come from?" Googling [formation elements] yields an entire page of websites explaining it.

"How was it determined how many bonds each element would have ...?" Google [Pauli exclusion principle]: From Wiki, the first hit: "The Pauli exclusion principle helps explain a wide variety of physical phenomena. One particularly important consequence of the principle is the elaborate electron shell structure of atoms and the way atoms share electrons, explaining the variety of chemical elements and their chemical combinations.

A better question would be "why don't creationists actually learn some science before trying to question it?" Would you try to join a serious discussion of NBA draft picks and start criticizing other peoples' opinions without knowing the first thing about basketball? Of course not. You'd just make a fool of yourself. Same thing with science!